Ctd...
Point 3:
<I am not going to box against shadows [unthinkable]. You need to succinctly put the argument of Marx’s economic theory first, and I will then refute it.>
The problem here, first of all, is that I'm not a "Marxist" (which I'm eager for you to define for me). I referred to Marx's theory of capitalism's dynamic and to Wallerstein's theory of "world systems" above. If you require me to attempt a potted version of these theories, I will have a go, and I can try to restate my overall position (though my time is precious too) though I think I've given the gist of it above.
I accept your challenge, but I concede you the advantage of starting your own thread, thereby setting the parameters; otherwise, we can continue here; whichever you prefer.
I am familiar with Mises, but shall gratefully assimilate the link you provide.
On your final point:
I am a peace-loving individual and deplore all violence (quite a claim for a human being; better change that to all "gratuitous" violence). I certainly do not "advocat[e] the deaths by starvation of large numbers of people". That is precisely what I wish to avoid.

In all seriousness, Peter Hume, it's a cold-war debate that should be had, since we must learn to think again, outside those tropes that rush in to think for us, as Orwell cautioned.

Dear TBC and Poirot,
thank you for dealing with Stern. He exasperates me!

Poirot, I do like your last point about Stern's "charming" recourse to natural attrition.
He's quite right, of course. The way we're going there's a large and abrupt correction in the pipeline!
I wonder if Stern and co will be so phlegmatic when they're on the receiving end?

I conveniently forget history, Yabby?
Apple computers hit the market in the 70's; the first computer sold complete, rather than in kit form, as apple's main competitors Tandy and Commodore did.
One of the few historical datum's you managed to get right is that Apples were high priced (although we need to compare 'apples with apples', they were one of the few and now about the only company to offer a complete hardware/software package); as a result they never achieved anything like the market dominance of Microsoft, which (being as you say, more affordable) came to dominate the market in 1986 (that's 8 years prior to the date you posit), and has never looked back -achieving in fact, a virtual monopoly for several decades that Steve Jobs can (and no doubt does) only envy.

Col Rouge, is that you? Have you been reincarnated as the arse end of a boat? I had no idea you were so fond of the nanny state.
“And the problem with government – governments know how only to be mean (and the Collectivist ones wastefully incompetent) .... and are never ever philanthropic”
No, they just supply such things as old age pension, disability pension, unemployment assistance, rent assistance, New Enterprise Encentive schemes, hardship subsidies, farm assistance, exceptional circumstances assistance... But I agree, these are not acts of charity, are they? And I'm quite confident you wouldn't describe overseas aid as 'philanthropic'...
As to your challenge:
“your collectivist policies have produced, at best, a complete waste and at worst, mass murder.”
I'll ignore for the moment the very simple fact that I'm not a collectivist, (which of course you will ignore, as I'm not a right wing libertarian, refer my previous post) in the last 3 three decades of globalisation the only country to have made serious inroads into global poverty statistics is 'Communist China'.
Speaking of which, which single country was most responsible for getting the world, and Australia in particular, through the GFC?
Hey Unca Yabby and Unca Stern, did it work? Did the Great Wall of China keep the rabbits out?

Just listening to ABC RN 'The Natuional Interest' on this very topic with Dr. Tim Jackson.

Worth a listen.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2010/2949473.htm

http://www.readings.com.au/event/deakin-lectures-2010-prosperity-without-growth

Clearly just an old style commo... absolute nonsense... Stern needs to send him a stern note.

Stern, you need to let go of the past, and all your petty fears.

How do you explain your hope for calamity to wipe out your children's (here I am assuming you have some, if not, sorry I didn't ask first) future to them, or at least to the younger generation below you?

Given your confected angst over the millions done away with under Communism, I am genuinely shocked that you are so blase about 'the poor folk' who will evaporate under your ideal world, should disaster kick in as some predict.

How do you know you will be able to ride the storm?

Will your 'squillions' be worth a cracker, or will you be scrounging the shops for crackers?

*they were one of the few and now about the only company to offer a complete hardware/software package); as a result they never achieved anything like the market dominance of Microsoft, which (being as you say, more affordable) came to dominate the market in 1986*

Grim, computers became really popular when they became user friendly.
They became user friendly when they went to a graphical user interface.

Jobs got all that right, he was years ahead. There was nothing
to compete with the Apple Mac. But he was too greedy. If you wanted
a good computer, you had to accept his inflated price and were stuck
with his software, his printer, his everything. Had Jobs sold
his operating system to other manufacturers, Microsoft would have
virtually vanished, for nobody liked MS-DOS. It was user unfriendly.

Apples first so called "golden age" was between 89-91. At that
stage, he had MS over a barrel.

How many computers a year were being sold in the 80s? By 2001
it was 125 million, with now over 2 billion sold. That ease of
use made the difference to all those who wern't computer nerds.

If you do your homework you will find that MS really took off with
the advent of Windows 3. Anything before that was a toy, as were
the Commodores and Ataris and all the rest.

What Gates did was let anyone buy the closest thing to a Mac,
for the paltry price of 49.95$. That is why he made money, he
could see the value of being the standard, and making money by
sheer volume. Jobs lacked that vision.

I was one of those many people who refused to buy a computer
until they were reasonably priced, easy to use and with software
that was the same. Gates provided it, so he got my money,
along with a whole lot of others.

Providing consumers with value for money is what business is
all about.

*And yes, on the aircons and bike riding.*

TBC, I'm not sure what you mean there. So would you ban air conditioners and enforce bike riding by law?

If so, for what benefit?

If the global population is going to crash because its unsustainably
large, then if it crashes a bit earlier or a bit later, hardly
matters in the bigger scheme of things. For we clearly forgot
to address the key problem, ie population, not if resources can
be stretched out to last an extra few years or not.

*And that is not just 'human nature' of all but it surely has a dash of cultural-tinge to it, so the Western protestant mood requires more money all the time*

I'd have to disagree here, for a I know plenty of Western protestants
as you call them, who when they reach their 50s, feel that they have
enough to live the quiet life and are quite content to do so, without
wanting ever more. But I also know some business types who have that
deep hunting instinct of making a killing, just like others have when
they go to the football. Money to them is not that they want more,
its their way of keeping score. So thats a deep primordial hunting
instinct showing through.

*All those 'piffling' activities do add up*

Add up to what? They might make users feel good, but they are not
going to make a scrap of difference to the 250'000 additional people
on the planet, being added each day. Until you solve that one,
you ain't solved nothing.